Title II Common Carrier Regulation is "Inept" Says Martin Geddes

The wrong analogies and metaphors, as consultant Martin Geddes points out, can be hazardous, even if the right metaphor can help clarify the logic of a position. Consider “paid prioritization,” one aspect of “network neutrality” that is controversial.Geddes attended the District of Columbia court hearing on the Federal Communications Commission's "Open Internet" rules, commonly referred to as the imposition of Title II common carrier regulation.

Asks Geddes; “The existence of 'fast lanes' must mean everything else becomes a 'slow(er) lane'. Is this a good or bad thing?”

“We already have ubiquitous and uncontroversial paid peering,” Geddes notes. Apparently one justice also asked questions by way of analogy. “The railroads were at liberty to charge for refrigerated containers for goods that needed special handling, so it seems ‘utterly reasonable’ that ISP should be able to do the same,” Geddes reports.

Indeed, "users who create a cost should bear that cost,” a line of reasoning that also bears on the matter of metered usage, one might argue.

“All other transport businesses have tiered services that align price and cost to timeliness of delivery,” Geddes notes. “The FCC is pushing a hypothetical ‘dread’ which has absolutely no factual substance behind it, and has lost tremendous credibility as a regulator as a result.”

“Banning a market for quality is an anti-innovation policy,” says Geddes. “It creates a distortion by preventing rational resource pricing through market mechanisms. A simple general rule on equal access to paid priority is plenty enough.”

“The Title II reclassification is an attempt to constrain ISP power, but is a politically, technically and economically inept one,” Geddes argues. His reflections on the D.C. court hearing are here.

Popular posts from this blog

You can see where this is going. Younger users text more than they talk, and though today's users 25 and above still talk more than they text, the usage pattern is uniform: younger age cohorts text more than older age cohorts.

So as each age cohort advances, one might predict that texting behavior will grow over time. How much it grows is the only real question.

Users 18 or younger actually"talk" about as much as users 55 to 64. One suspects an awful lot of "voice" activity is of the coordination and collaboration sort, so that younger and mid-life workers might be in work groups that require more coordination than workers 55 to 64.

Industry competitors normally pay money to track their market share versus their "real" competitors. The problem is that, in rapidly-changing and porous new markets, the legacy competitors--even when they are the most benchmarked firms--are not the strategic competitors. These days, many service providers would say that "Google" or other app providers are their key competitors, even as they continue to benchmark against others in their "narrow" markets (mobile market share, or fixed network video or internet access).

The biggest single change in the internet value chain between 2005 and 2010, for example, was the shift of revenue from telcos to Apple, Microsoft and Google. Telecom providers lost 12 percent of profit, while Apple, Microsoft and Google gained 11 percent. source: McKinsey Nevertheless, the strategic issue is diminishing relevance. The "access to the internet" and associated service provider functions simply represent less value in th…

By now, telecom executives are well aware of the “disruption” market strategy, whereby new entrants do not so much try and “take market share” as they attempt to literally destroy existing markets and recreate them. Skype and VoIP provider one example. The “Free” services run by Illiad provide other examples. Most recently, we have seen Reliance Jio disrupting the economics of the mobile market in India, offering free voice in a market where voice drives service provider revenues. “Free” is a difficult price point in most markets. But free voice forever is among the pricing and packaging foundations for Reliance Jio’s fierce attack on India’s mobile market structure. “Free voice” does not only lead to Jio taking market share, but reshapes the market, destroying the foundation of its competitor business models. At the same time, Jio hopes to become the leader in the new market, driven by mobile data, with far-higher usage and subscribership, and vastly-lower prices. source: GSMADisruption…

Gary Kim has been a communications industry analyst, consultant and journalist for more than 35 years. He currently works mostly as a content developer (marketing copy, white papers, applied research, conference and blog content.

He speaks frequently at industry events, has written one book, half a dozen major market studies and 24,000 articles. His work is noted for its examination of business model issues.

He was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.